What we don’t know can hurt us (Ben Goldacre) #TEDMED

It pretty much highlights some of the problems I discussed in the last post on the excess of positive results in academic research. Choice quote: “But this problem of negative results that go missing in action is still very prevalent. In fact, it’s so prevalent that it cuts to the core of evidence-based medicine”.

My expertise is not in medicine, but it would make sense if clinical trials were registered based on their methodology before any study took place. This would then provide a reference point for independent-confirmation of results by different laboratories. It doesn’t necessarily solve the withholding of negative results — a laboratory may choose not publish data if it has a vested interest in the drug under study (Goldacre highlights this point in his talk concerning the registration of trials). I guess change can only come from shifting the culture of doing science: that is, we place a renewed emphasis on devising methods and testing hypotheses (look, here is a drug that may or may not help fight cancer better than what’s currently available), rather than the pressure to publish positive results (look, my drug works really well, but I didn’t realise there were all these previous negative results and, in truth, it’s only better than a placebo).

Archives

Archives

Subscribe to OpenScience

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog.

Email Address

De Gruyter Open Access

The blog openscience.com uses cookies to store information that enables us to optimize our website and make browsing more comfortable for you. To learn more about the use of cookies, please read our privacy statement at the following link.
Privacy Statement